Fair enough. I'm willing to admit a mistake when I commit one. Sometimes, I'm too skeptical of all the information floating around (especially the internet). Either way, I will say there is most likely a generation gap between people that like the Trons and the younger people that don't.

Generalizations may lose some information, but they also reveal some.

"Stepping back from the positive and negative reviews of the new Tron sequel, Tron: Legacy....I believe this speaks to how the human race has grown out of its own imagination when it comes to technology since it entered the digital age."

Where I come from that's call hypocrisy with false pretenses; let me elaborate:
A person's opinion cannot and should not be used as the defining data point for discerning if they are "un-imaginative." That's statistically flawed, small sample size from near infinite population of imaginative activities. Let alone, close-minded of the author. It seems this author claims to be unbiased in this quote when in actuality he's appealing to the largest population (both sides pro/con-Tron: Legacy) to garner an audience, then he subtly forces his opinion on the reader by stating that "I believe this speaks to how the human race has grown out of its own imagination when it comes to technology since it entered the digital age" or in a nutshell I heard "people who don't like Tron: Legacy are unimaginative, what do you think?" The "what do you think?" is simply his way of covering his a*s and appealing to the largest population while prefacing with his biased opinion. People who use this tactic are crafty liars who use word-play and misdirection to obtain what they want (e.g. slimy car salesman, lobbyists, politicians...etc). Liking or disliking a movie in no way discerns an individual's creative potential let alone, the ability of a generation of a species.

My Movie Opinion - I never saw the original Tron and figured I'd give this new movie a fresh and fair assessment with no expectations. Being a fairly tech-savvy person as I watched Tron: Legacy I became more and more disgusted with the way the story played out. It picked-and-chose when to apply logic (real-world physics...etc) and creative liberties, such as - Dr. Flynn (dad) was a prisoner of Clu, yet he possessed enough power to simply walk up to ANY person/program and reprogram them within 10 seconds? If you can walk up to anyone and control them in 10 seconds or less what is there to fear from them? Let alone if you have all these matrix-y area affect powers...but I digress all-in-all I thought the movie had enjoyable metaphors, yet was lacking in the writing department to properly express these ideals. VOTE: 5/10 (that's rounding up)

I'm pretty sure no one agrees with the government's actions, and anyone with 2 braincells or more a find a reason to dislike them. But to what benefit does it do to release confidential documents without entire proper noun redaction to reduce/eliminate it's impact on national security and day-to-day operations?

IMHO, Assange (sp?) is an internet, information blackmail thug that is using illicitly provided information to threaten the US government (much like terrorism is used to get what they want). And then these little a55holes who think "gov't sucks, f*ck the man, I deserve more attention and money...etc" are jumping on the bandwagon and using his popularity as an excuse to defend him and his "cause" by downloading this program and DDoSing a site. To what benefit does it do anyone other than Anon and Assange to DDoS a site, especially a private company or personal website? They are private individuals and retain the right to refuse business of anyone. If you don't like it, suck it up and do business elsewhere, that's capitalism and individual rights for you. It doesn't give you the right to go on the offensive and degrade the online experience for everyone else by attacking the private individual/business (like Amazon).

"What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking, has been resolved by global warming," said Hazra.

Why does everyone default to anthropogenic global warming as the culprit? Global warming or even other events might (and probably do) have a varying significant impact on this island becoming submerged; yet it is shortsighted and laziness on this person's judgment to claim it was global warming to unquestionably. Get some scientific and reliable evidence before you make public claims as facts.

- Why worry about the end, when people are already destroying the present?

Seems to be nothing more than a bickering citation debate over AGW.

The real tragedy is painful and distorted abuse the scientific process has taken with all this AGW 'science' floating around from self proclaimed and cohort sponsoring experts. I'm almost sick calling it a science, even calling it semi-science, quasi-science or even postulate sickens my stomach. The process generically is as follows:

"A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[35]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_process

The key it is an iterative process and will weed out incorrect hypothesis. Now granted the scale of the "experiment" renders a significant challenge to objectively interpret results, this debate we are having for pro-AGW and anti-AGW is a portion of that interpreting of data, what results we come to, is to be determined.


Personal Opinions and Examples:
I am an engineer and a fervent believer in a strict, regimented analysis to arrive at conclusive solutions. I also have yet to mention, that I'm a HVAC&R (Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration) engineer, I see the business side of the climate debate and what policies are 'actually' doing to our business, economy, and as a citizen, our society. I having attempted first-hand to apply some of the government sponsored mathematics to validate credits for green building certification, and can say that on a macro scale their units don't match. I and anyone who has a LEED v3.0 code book has proof in their hands (check the units for EAc4 aka Enhanced Refrigerant Credit 4). Short of the creators of this book throwing in couple unspecified coefficients ("global warming potential" or "ozone depletion potential"), they cannot make their units match up. It is near laughable for anyone who has taken calculus II or above, even to look at how the equations are written; as if by a two year old who doesn't know what subscripts are. In short, I have yet to see proof that AGW exists and see only a global scandal fueled by misinterpretation of data and the scientific process.

The AGW process:
1) Create an mandated industry
2) Regulate and control the industry
3) Own the industry
4) Gain further control of associated industries (construction, manufacturing, transportation...etc.)

IngSoc here we come.